The right-wing noise machine has strongly implied, and falsely so, that the Obama administration doctored government emails concerning the Benghazi tragedy.

In truth, however, it was the Republicans themselves who doctored the emails. And a gullible reporter at ABC News peddled the falsifications to the public, as we see HERE:

Last week, ABC News’ Jon Karl [above] reported on emails that he said he’d obtained, that purported to show the process involved in developing the talking points on the September 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Once CNN’s Jake Tapper actually did obtain a real email, and the White House subsequently released the actual email chain, Karl’s “emails” were revealed to be summaries, provided by a source, which contained invented quotes and significant omissions. On Thursday night’s CBS Evening News, Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett reported that a Republican source was behind the invented quotes…

(Snip)

[CBS New anchor Scott Pelley:] “Republicans claim that the Administration watered down the facts in talking points that were given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Mr. Obama was running for reelection. Republicans on Capitol Hill claim that they had found proof of this in White House e-mails that they leaked to reporters last week. Well, it turns out some of the quotes in those e-mails were wrong.”

CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett then reported on the source of those invented quotes, and offered his analysis of their effect on the Republican narrative. ”Scott, Republicans have claimed that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism,” Major began. “The White House released the real e-mails late yesterday and here’s what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been provided by Republicans. One e-mail was written by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes. On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes. ‘We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.’”

“But it turns out, in the actual e-mail Rhodes did not mention the State Department,” he continued. “It read ‘We need to resolve this in a way that respects all the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.’ Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an e-mail written by State Department Spokesman Victoria Nuland. The Republican version notes Nuland discussing ‘the penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda’s presence and activities of al-Qaeda.’”

“The actual e-mail from Nuland says ‘the penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings,’” Major said, adding “The CIA agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department, and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the CIA’s original version, eliminating references to al Qaeda and affiliates, and earlier security warnings.”

Garret concluded, “There is no evidence, Scott, the White House orchestrated these changes.”

“Point one: Republicans never “received” the emails. Here’s what really happened: On March 19, the White House briefed the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, along with staff for Speaker John Boehner and minority leader Nancy Pelosi, on the emails in question. Those at the briefing were permitted to take notes but not copy the contents of the emails. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, was not represented at this session.

Point two: Republicans raised strenuous objections based on the information they were given at that briefing. In their interim report on Benghazi, released April 23, House Republicans alleged that “White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the Intelligence Community in order to protect the State Department.” The report described and, in one case, quoted from the emails in question.

Point three: Nothing was “doctored.” Following the House report, Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard revealed a significant amount of new detail, followed by Jon Karl at ABC News. Both Hayes and Karl refer to summaries of the emails, meaning they presumably relied a great deal on the notes of those at the March 19 White House briefing. Karl inaccurately quotes from one email, which may have been based on faulty note-taking or some other error. While this is significant, the email in question exists and has the same core content as the email quoted by Karl — there was no wholesale fabrication.

Point four: The differences between the two versions of the email have been overstated.
…..”

Ah wilson…republicans did alter those e-mails and they did this then got ABC news to run the story that was absolute BS..BS that started with re-writen e-mails to fit their conclusions from said republicans…where are you getting all your news….fox again..really

Brian, the last time something like that happened, where some republican operative changed a document, the newscaster, Dan Rather, had to step down. I wonder if this ABC guy have to do the same or because he may not be hated by the far right, they’ll let it slide? I remember reading how it was Jerry Falwell’s big desire to see Rather go away. Rather’s still here but Falwell is gone. Odd how things turn out.

Falwell is probably still standing at the pearly gates trying to explain why he said Katrina folks deserved what they got…and the many other hateful remarks he made over all those years while taking the money from poor folks that believed in his rotten BS ideas, and then spent his followers money on himself and his own family…

Robert, point me where there is a non biased publication. (please don’t tell me Applesauce)
” The differences between the two versions of the email have been overstated. At issue is the involvement of Ben Rhodes, a senior White House aide, in directing the various members of the inter-agency discussion to resolve their dispute.

Here’s the relevant part of the email as quoted by Karl:

We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.

Here’s the relevant sentence from the real email:

We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

The email is important because in the preceding email back-and-forth, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland had urged that references to terrorism be removed because they could be a political liability to State. Whether Rhodes said Nuland’s objections should be accommodated explicitly or by implication is a difference, but it’s a pretty small one.

Were there differences? Yes, and we should be careful in providing an accurate record of what was written, so older versions should be expunged and replaced. But does this change the essential testimony being offered from the e-mails? Not to speak of. And what differences there are were not generated by the GOP, but by quick note taking which was picked up by Jon Karl. Just keep that in mind as the White House continues to try to squirm their way out of this.”http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/19/about-those-doctored-benghazi-e-mails/

This is the way I see it. The facility at Benghazi was a CIA operation but that can’t be admitted to as it will put all diplomats and their facilities at risk around the world. The CIA screwed up, but that will never be admitted to. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out (we won’t though) that the people killed there were all CIA operatives. That organization and the NSA are bigger and have more covert tentacles in many places than the American people will ever know, because most are ignorant of such operations and how those agencies work. The CIA has many front organizations and many informants wear several hats. Nothing is what it seems to be or is being posed as when it comes to the intelligence gathering services.

Republicans will not stop till find some kind of dirt on Benghazi….how else are they going to tell us they were right all along….thing is that after 9 some hearings they still have nothing…and they have become so desperate to find anything they were willing to change some e-mails then got ABC news to run with this totally BS story…..ask yourself one question….why would republicans do this….can you say desperate…!!

Brian, this is more about energizing their ignorant base for the 2014 elections, than any thing else. The party heads know how to pull the strings and lead them along and the MSM media is their accomplice, as they need to fill those airwaves and keep all those talking heads babbling about something.

Someone posted a pleasant observation about the good ole days not being so great afterall, but in my opinion, the 24 hour news cycle is what’s driving much of the division in our country, that and the conservative AM radio talk show host. They make up about 99% of the AM dial that’s not sports channels. I don’t think there is a liberal radio channel anymore. Our was cut off just after the election. No more Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Ed Schultz, Ring of Fire with Mike Pappatonia and Bobby Kennedy Jr. (which I think was the best).